Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 Next
Comments 20651 to 20700:
-
Leto at 08:17 AM on 7 March 2017Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Synthetic Organic, your post sounds very reasonable, and prompted me to go back and read the thread. In the broad context of the whole thread, there was ample evidence that PanicBusiness had a foolish notion of what science was, how it should proceed, and whether AGW should count as science. The suggestion that he had not got past introductory science classes was, perhaps, ad hominem, but if he did get past those classes he clearly failed to develop a mature understanding of the nature of science.
Among his comments from 2014 was this: "I personally find it very likely that in the coming five years there will be no significant warming or there will even be significant cooling. If that happens I want the CAGW community to not come up with additional excuses, and hand-waving like it was totally expected."
In hindsight, he looks especially foolish given the string of record global temperature records that have occurred since he made his prediction. (It's comically ironic, really, that his own worldview was so rapidly falsified.)
Besides, he was a sock puppet, so all of his posts were tainted with dishonesty. Those who engaged with him probably picked up on that dishonesty, recognised him as a troll, and reacted accordingly.
I agree it would have been better if the ad hominem elements had been left out. On the other hand, I think the SkS regulars are remarkably patient with folks like PanicBusness. It is not surprising that an ad hominem flavour crept into the thread, given that the regular SkS commentors were dealing with a dishonest fool pedalling a tired denialist meme.
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 7 March 2017Americans are confused on climate, but support cutting carbon pollution
So this is the general picture in summary: A narrow majority of Americans think we are altering the climate, and not that many are concerned about the future, yet a large majority want action on climate change ( a great thing in my opinion).
It's intriguing and contradictory, but there are possible explanations. Firstly It suggests whatever some people think about causes of climate change, they see value in renewable energy for a variety of other reasons.
Secondly it suggests some people are sceptical about the science, but want emissions reduced "just in case" the science is right. So people are sort of half sceptical, and very confused or uncertain in America (and probably some other countries) and this is hardly surprising, given an irresponsible, self interested campaign to spread doubt about the science, and generally politicise the climate issue.
-
SyntheticOrganic at 05:46 AM on 7 March 2017Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Tom Dayton said: "You are incorrect that falsifiability is "the very definition of science." That is something you would know if you had gotten past introductory science classes in college. (It is sad that such fundamentals of science are inadequately taught at the introductory course level."
I resent your comment. First of all, it is an ad hominem (and hence should have been deleted), because it clearly implies that PanicBusiness never got past an introductor science class n college. Also, it implies that PanicBusiness was never taught the fundamentals of science.
Your argument is also fallacious because it asserts that PanicBusiness' statement is wrong without explaining why. Rather, you simply assert that his statement is false, then go on to conclude that he hadn't gotten past introductory science in college. Whether PanicBusiness even has a high school diploma or not is irrelevant. What is relevant are his reasons for claiming that falsifiability is "the very definition of science."
I assure you that I got well past introductory science course, so I must say that I am offended by your implication because by extension I believe you are also suggesting that I never got past introductory science classes in university or that I do not understand the fundamentals of science. I believe that your ad hominem extends to me because I basically agree that falsifiability is an excellent criteria for differentiating between science and non-science.
The wordpress article you linked to does not really explain why you are so disdainful of PanicBusiness' idea that falsifiability is "the very definition of science." I disagree that it is "the very definition of science" but your response is just a dismissive ad hominem that doesn't explain or clarify.
I am also a little disappointed by the "Response" (in green) found within PanicBusiness' comment. I think the idea of falsifiability being crucial for differentiating between science and non-science is well enough know that a source should not be required and it would have been more appropriate to clarify or explain that Karl Popper wasn't suggesting that falsifiability is "the very definition of science itself."
I am disappointed that Tom's post wasn't deleted because I think it is clearly an ad hominem, but I suspect that it was allowed to stand because PanicBusiness seems to be arguing that the theory of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is not scientific. This appears to me to be a bias in the application of the rules.
I think PanicBusiness is wrong to say that the AGW theory is unfalsifiable because it clearly makes predictions which are falsifiable.
In addition, alternative explanations for global warming often make predictions which are simply false, so the AGW theory stands as the best explanation.
The AGW theory of global warming is falsifiable, hence it meets that very crucial criteria of a scientific hypothesis or theory. The AGW theory is also the best explanation for global warming.Moderator Response:[PS] Moderation complaints are always offtopic. Moderating is an onerous task for which we dont always get it right but a lengthy post complaining about comments made more than 2 years ago does not contribute much to the discussion. Your main points are fine.
-
John Hartz at 05:23 AM on 6 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Suggested supplemental reading:
UBS Analyst Gets Future Investment Costs For Tesla Supercharger Network Super Wrong by Loren McDonald, Clean Technica, Mar 5, 2017
-
michael sweet at 21:23 PM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
In my post above it should say "generation that covers the peak load during the day will only have to generate 50% at night".
Shifting charging times of electric cars and other flexible energy use would significantly lower usage on windless lights beyond current usage. Baseload plants currently pay users to use excess electricity at night. Renewable energy plants would compensate users differently to adjust total power loads.
-
michael sweet at 20:57 PM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Chriskoz,
We need to consider the entire future grid. Storage of electricity in cars will not be the only method of storing electricity. If the only action that people take is to stop charging their car when electricity supply is low, that will help support the grid a lot. Many people with a Bolt (240 miles per charge) who only use 40 miles a day will be able to easily go over several days without charging their car. I do not fill up my car with gas until it gets low, do you imagine that everyone will require daily charging for electric cars? Like the airconditioner mentioned above, with a small incentive people will delay charging until they need the fill up. Transportation uses approximately 29% of total US power. It would be possible to delay a large fraction of that use for a few days until a new weather system arived to spin the wind generators.
More electricity is used during the day than at night. There is no reason that we need to generate as much electricity at night as during the day.
Generation that covers the peak demand during the day will only have to generate 25% at night to cover needs. It is never windless over the entire USA, especially those areas that ae naturally windy.Other adjustments will be made to cover windless nights. Currently hydro power is primarily used to cover peak power from 11:00 am to 7:00 pm. there is nothing stopping hydro from running fom 7:00 pm until the wind picks up. Since hydro currently generates about 5% of total power, it could generate almost all of electricity needed during most of your windless night. No new hydro needs to be built, we only need to change the time of day the turbines are run. It is also possible to cheaply add turbines to current dams to increase the peak power they can generate for the rare windless night. Hydro would then be run at minimum flow rates for several windy nights to allow the reservoir to refill.
I took a rafting trip down the Colorado river many years ago. There is a strong tide on the river as each days peak generation surge of water goes by.
Currently existing gas peaker plants can supplement hydro while renewable energy backup plants are built. It is currently not economic to build out a lot of renewable storage because you make more money just selling the electricity on the open market. Once wind and solar have displaced baseload power it will be more economic to build out other methods of storage.
Many other methods are available to store electricity for windless nights. Focusing on a single, new, limited method of storing energy, as several posters have done on this thread will always result in finding that the method fails. No-one suggests using a single method of generating power on widless nights.
Jacbson and Budischak both use zero batteries in their plans to power the world with renewable energy. Budischak finds batteries too expensive to build. This OP suggests a way to add significant battery power to the grid for free. The batteries are built for another purpose entirely and excess capacity is used to support the grid. That can only reduce the cost of a renewable grid as proposed by researchers like Jacobson who have conservatively left out htis option.
I have also seen it proposed to use old batteries from cars, which have 75-80% of their storage left, as backup for the grid. Since the batteries have already been used their cost would be low.
Think through these proposals. Cars alone cannot support the grid. That does not mean that the grid cannot be supported, it means that cars will only provide a fraction of the needed support. Since it would be free to use car batteries as described that would lower the cost of any renewable grid. Just shifting charging time lowers cost significantly.
-
nigelj at 10:09 AM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Chriskoz, you have delivered some much needed scepticism of the logical kind. My immediate reaction was the whole use of car batteries to power the grid would be too complicated to make work.
Regarding whether people can be relied on to plug their cars in. You could probably determine a level at which you have high reliability (at a comparable level to the conventional grid) but it might deliver low participation, and so not much electricity.
But being sceptical of your and my own scepticism, maybe there could be incentives to encourage participation, and a contractual agreement, and Trump won't be there forever. He is an anomaly (please I hope so, there can't be endless complete idiots).
The ideal solution is a better battery. While I'm not a technology dreamer that thinks anything is possible, it seems odd that we can't devise some cheap form of battery of high capacity. Perhaps there are such things, but the oil companies have bought up all the patents.
Or perhaps conventional batteries could close much of the gap in supply. For very extreme conditions maybe we have to rely on fossil fuels like gas, that can be turned on rapidly, and sequester this carbon in the ground or something. But again, this creates a technically complex system, and would have to get through all the political complexity as well. We could be stuck with coal like you say, but that's so depressing.
-
chriskoz at 08:39 AM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Glenn Tamblyn@10,
It's worth noting that your Phase 2 was already resolved for more than 60 years - diesel electric railway locomotives - the most efficient self-contained ground transportation technology today.
Why Phase 3 (I understand you mean EV carying its own electric charge) did not happen in rail transport yet? Answer is in my post above: it's next to impossible to recreate the miracle of energy density and convenience of diesel fuel. Of course we have pure electric locomotives (they came, not surprisingly, even earlier than diesel electrics. But they cannot be self contained: they must consume external energy via an overhead wire or a third rail.
-
chriskoz at 08:14 AM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Tthereaer two issues ignored in this OP.
1. Amount of power transfer between grid and EV batteries needed to balance the grid. To achieve zero emissions, substantial part of the total power output of the economy (in US it's a staggering verage 10kW/person) must be supplied by car betteries overnight when the sun is not shining and in the event the wind is not blowing. That drawdown at night must be ballanced by twice the production during the day (20kW/person) even ignoring seasonal/weather fluctuations. If taken into account, those fluctuations (e.g. extreme heat or winter snow when days are dark/short) multiply the demand on the grid several folds. How much solar pannels installations do we need to supply that energy - at least an average power of 20kW/person? How big the transmissions lines need to be to supply that energy from car batteries to hungry energy customers, e.g. alluminum smelters? Then comes the question of energy security: what happens if majority of population forgets to "re-plug-in" their cars in the evning, or decides not to do it because of some massive hysteria (e.g. inspired by an irresponsible presidential tweet), or simply in the name of american freedom to drive their car wherever and however they want as Henry Ford thought them? The result: total grid collapse. I think from the energy security standpoint alone, the idea of substantial grid backing by EV batteries is just pure utopia.
2.Energy density of oil/petrol and associated convenience of its transport and almost instantanous re-energising at the bowser cannot be replaced by the existing EV technology. The miracle of that energy density compressed into oil (and to coal) by 100Myear long geo-processes is difficult to reproduce in a timescale of days (e.g. by solar panels) needless to say a few minutes by a customer at the bowser. At the moment, the only imaginable solution would be to lift the battery with a crane and replace it with another one. Say, it's about 400kWh of energy (equivalent of 8litres of petrol/2gallons of gasoline for a very, very efficient car). If a servo station performs about 100 such operations per hour (average traffic on petrol stations I witness arround my neighbourhood) then each of them must have the rechyarging power supply of 400kWx100=4,000kW. That's a signifficant infrastructure. Until it is not built, we are stuck with proverbial EV "runing on coal".
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:19 AM on 5 March 2017Climate Bet for Charity, 2017 update
dwr... I'd make a $5 side bet that KW KT (Kiwi Thinker) has to change the scale on his Y-axis before the bet concludes.
-
David Kirtley at 01:54 AM on 5 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Jdeutsch @16: The Union of Concerned Scientists had a report about the life-cycle costs, etc of EVs: Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave.
-
MA Rodger at 23:12 PM on 4 March 2017Climate Bet for Charity, 2017 update
My own version of the progress of this bet (here - usually two clicks to 'download your attachment') provides yet a third representation of the bet. It's main benefit, apart from being far more colourful and thus more cheerful, is that it plots the contribution from each month within the decade and shows how much they each assist or not (red or blue) each side in the bet.
The present state of play is shown by the 'pyramid' trace which sets the average required from the remaining months if the outcome were to be a draw. Thus, the 'pyramid' trace being below the 2001-10 average shows the temperature-record-to-date is favoring a warmer 2011-20. And any monthly temperature above the 'pyramid' trace is improving that position. You will note that there has not been a month improving the status of a cooler 2011-20 since April 2015, almost 2 years ago.
We can expect the 'pyramid' trace, bar a big volcano going bang in the coming years, to continue to drop and at an increasingly rapid rate as the period available for reversing the 'hot' lead shrinks to zero. This of course assumes that AGW doesn't also play a role itself by bringing us a significant amount of warming in the next few years. And all that is without the doomsday scenario for the cooler bet (which is surely almost a certainty) of the release of an RSS TLT v4.0. Of course, the change from UAH TLTv5.6 to v6.0beta5 did have an opposite effect. (The 'pyramid' trace presently sits 0.08ºC below the 2001-10 average with v6.0 but it would have been down at 0.12ºC below with v5.6.)
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:24 PM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
The whole area of storage is going to take off and grow far more sophisticated. A lot of current thinking (no pun intended) is very preliminary>
I think we will see a very hybrid storage network out there. Large systems like pumped hydro, storage as heat, flow batteries, other mechanical type systems. Then static chemical batteries like Li-Ion and follow-ons like magnesium.
Also missing from this mix is consideration of ultra-capacitors. Maybe not up to storing what batteries can but really really good at the very short charge/discharge cycles. Ideal for protecting chemical batteries from short cycle effects.
Just because the battery in your car only lasts 10-7-5-3 years doesn't mean that you will need a complete new battery pack. An important development might be batteries that can be refreshed/regenerated with much less resources and effort. So when you swap the battery out, the replacement isn't brand new, its just an old battery that was sent off for a 'grease and oil-change'.
Then a wild card development might be the alternative means of charging. Inductive Charging. Non-contact, remote charging. Initially perhaps just a more convenient charging system at home or the office - park and it charges. But it can actually be extended to the roads themselves - inductive charging is possible on the move. Charge up while you sit at the lights, or cruise along the highway. Obviously a huge infrastructure roll-out but that might change the mix - cars with much less storage (I wont say batteries) that are being regularly recharged through the day. Maybe much less battery capacity needed. -
dwr at 20:41 PM on 4 March 2017Climate Bet for Charity, 2017 update
Colours refer to the lines on the chart at Kiwi Thinker's site, sorry: http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Climate-Bet-Dec-2016.jpg
-
dwr at 20:39 PM on 4 March 2017Climate Bet for Charity, 2017 update
Kiwi Thinker's method looked good for the 'sceptics' for a a while there. Doesn't look like that green line has much chance of falling below the red one again between now and 2020.
-
Riduna at 17:50 PM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
The use of EV batteries to provide additional energy for the grid durng periods of peak demand could cover periods of peak demand 1. if grid management had access to EV batteries when those periods occur - most likely during the daytime and 2. if sufficient EV's were in use, which currently is not the case, though it maybe by 2025.
However, by 2025 utility-scale storage devices are likely to be available, enabling rapid access to the energy needed to cover peaks in demand and this would obviate the need to access car batteries for back-up energy.
-
KR at 15:17 PM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Recently, my local electric utility came by with an offer - for a small break on our bill, they installed a controller on our air conditioner that can be used to remotely and briefly shut it down during peak demand times to mitigate shortages. We agreed - It just made a lot of sense, allowing them to handle higher peak demand spikes without the cost of adding additional rarely used generators.
It occurs to me that car chargers could be made with that capability built in - 10% longer charging times on occasion would be a small price to pay for electrical utility management, and hardly noticeable.
-
jdeutsch at 11:59 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Makes sense from an energy point of view. But we need mass transit as an alternative. BTW, any figures onlife-cycle analysis of electric personal vehicles (mining, manuracturing, recycling, etc.)?
-
John Hartz at 10:02 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Recommended supplemental reading:
The End of Range Anxiety by Marlene Cimons, Nexus Media, Mar 1, 2017
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
William @13, yes batteries getting drained by demand from the grid is an issue. But the grid would probably be drawing power from cars only when the grid is in very short supply, and it would be drawing power from many cars, so might only draw a little from each car, assuming plenty of cars are linked into the scheme.
It may also be possible to design a car so that only a certain level of power is drawn, to ensure plenty is available in the morning. It should be possible to design things so that the owner can determine how much power is drawn.
-
william5331 at 06:47 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
A wee problem with this concept is that most people will want their electric vehicle fully charged up in the morning when they head off for work. I suspect that the real effect of electric vehicles on the grid will be to be able to some extent to be able to be charged when power is available rather than on demand. This is not as effective as what is proposed here but is still of significant value. You can charge up at work when the sun shines and the wind blows or at night if there is cheap power available due to a windy night. All this requires a grid which varies the price of power according to availability and sends the appropriate signal to the user to turn on and off his charging station according to what the user has programed into his charging computer.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/10/excess-energy-what-to-do.html
-
Cooper13 at 02:08 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
jtfarmer-
You are absolutely correct - this concept is really nothing but a pipe-dream with present battery technologies.
Most of the Li-ion batteries have something on the order of 1000 charge/discharge cycles before they lose a significant fraction of their capacity (and mileage range). Thus, if you are recharging a couple times a week (say every 3.6 days), that is 100 charge/discharge cycles per year. That means your battery will last around 10 years before it is effectively no longer very useful and needs to be replaced (this is probably more like 5-7 years in reality with other factors).
Now, you hook that battery up to 'act as a grid buffer', and if you end up discharging and recharging 3x as often, you drop your battery life from 10 years to 3 years. NO ONE should consider doing this with an expensive, lightweight Li-ion battery in their car. There are FAR cheaper options for battery technology which are not 'lightweight', but do not need to be. Degrading our electric car batteries to support the grid makes zero sense UNLESS costs to replace them drop enough that they become 'disposable' (and recycleable).
Dig a hole in the ground and use a heavier but robust battery technology that is cheap to support grid draws and buffer wind and solar; trying to use Li-ion from electric vehicles will simply degrade batteries so fast, consumers will get VERY pissed off that their cars no longer have the range they did when they were new, and people will be less likely to spend the extra money on a vehicle which 'wears out' prematurely.
If we get battery tech that can last 10x longer in cycling, only then does this become a viable option. Until then, chalk it up as a pipe-dream in my book. And I'm all for electric vehicles - just put cheap batteries in the ground to support the grid, because you have space, weight is a non-factor, and you have FAR better temperature homogeneity for them to boot....
-
Jim Eager at 00:58 AM on 4 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Villabolo wrote "Electric cars are not going to be popular right away because of the hassle of charging them up every 100 miles.”
Villabolo, you need to get out more. While the Nissan Leaf, Kia Soul and BMW i3 all currently get in the range of 160 km/100 miles per charge, the Chevy Bolt gets 383 km (398 max)/238 miles and the Tesla Model 3 will be in the similar range, so the range hurdle has already been lowered considerably, and the steady roll-out of a fast charger network is lowering it further. Remember, 100 years ago there weren’t all that many gas stations either. That said, although I’m considering buying a Bolt I plan on keeping my ten year old Prius for use on trips to destinations where chargers will be few and far between or non existent, or for times when I need more cargo capacity than the Bolt provides.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:39 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
nigelj
There is an interesting transition pathway here. A friend just bought a Mitsubishi Outlander plug-in hybrid. Only about 50 km on batteries. The technology is essentially a petrol motor and an electric motor driving gearbox etc. So very much conventional technology. That is phase 1.
Phase 2 is an all-electric drivetrain - electric motors only, goodbye gearboxes. But still a combustion engine but instead it drives a generator to produce electricity to drive the motors or charge the batteries. Actually mechanically much simpler and the combustion engine can now be designed for efficiency rather than the wide power/torque demands of driving.
Then phase 3 does away with the combustion engine. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:13 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
jtfarmer.
You raise an important point. Battery performance is ultimately sticker price and lifetime. Managing how our batteries are used to maximise life-time (or not negatively degrade it) is going to be an important part of the future.
Lots of ideas out there that are great at a conceptual level but the nitty-gritty can be more complex. -
BBHY at 18:36 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
I just love my electric car. I find it truly annoying that just about every article on electric cars brings comments about cars running on coal. I like to remind people that if your car is running on coal, then so is your refrigerator, air conditioner and big screen TV, so the problem is really not the car, but the coal plant. I've never seen anyone advocate that we should run our refrgerators on gasoline because it is "cleaner".
In any case, we are getting much less of our power from coal and an ever greater portion of our power from clean renewables. Ironically, this is even indirectly making gasoline fueled cars a bit cleaner, since refining oil into gasoline takes a huge amount of electric power.
That is why, contrary to what some people say, gasoline cars are never as clean, never can be as clean, as electrics. When you drive using gasoline, you've already used a lot of electric power just to refine your fuel, then you are burning the stuff on top of that!
-
KR at 14:14 PM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
There are some limitations here. I have a Volt, too, and the pure electric range (50 miles) is too small to provide utility backup and still be a useful electric car. For something like the Bolt, with >200 miles range, there's enough extra capacity to be useful, but there will need to be the flexibility to declare the car off limits for days when you need the full range.
House systems are another matter - I have 150A 220V service at my house, and a full charge for a Bolt would require something like 12 hours at 30-40A for completion; the just isn't the capacity for household falls charge/discharge at higher amperages. That's a basic infrastructure issue.
Given that high demand is often daytime, perhaps emphasizing workplace chargers/sources for use when you're parked at work?
And perhaps a partial solution might be helpful, too - when extra per is needed, and the car is available, run the house off the car and reduce demand accordingly?
-
Lachlan at 11:59 AM on 3 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@me in 15. Of course I was wrong to suggest that the radial axis be the year; it has to be the amount of ice. Actually, there doesn't need to be a year axis at all, because the spiral is continuous, and the progression through the months shows how many years have elapsed.
This site has had similar graphs for other quantities (CO_2 levels?).
-
Lachlan at 11:55 AM on 3 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
6 - OPOF: I personally think that the spiral is drawn the wrong way.
There is a natural periodicity to months of the year and to a circle. I think the month should be the angular axis, and the year should be the radial one. That shows clearly the inward spiral of the years, with a wobbly shape reflecting the seasonal changes.
I can't see any benefit at all in curving the natually linear time axis.
$0.02
-
michael sweet at 09:59 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Jtfarmer,
If you plan to charge on windy days (or sunny days) and then have enough power to not charge for several days that would help the grid a lot. Forecasts of wind and sun are already very accurate for several days out. You could adjust when you "fill" your car to help reduce demand on slow days.
Different people will decide what they want to do. Everyone does not have to participate the same way. For the right price I would return power to the grid. If the price was too low I wouldn't.
-
jtfarmer at 08:46 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
As an owner of a Chevy Volt I'm not too keen on using my car battery for storage/retrieval by the power network. I see it degrading my battery way before its time. I would be willing for it to be used to store excess grid power (hopefully at a discount) but not retrieval by the grid.
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
William @11, I agree with your sentiments and general goals, but there's an issue over oil.
You say "Get the meme into the head of their boss about how much money America the Great is wasting buying oil overseas, how that money comes back to buy up America the Great and make great Americans tenants in their own country."
Unfortunately this reasoning is a nice sentiment, but doesn't work. America's net oil imports are only 25% of total consumption as below. Fracking has almost made Americal self sufficient in oil (for a couple of decades anyway until it runs out).
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6
But I agree America leads the electric car industry (arguably) and Trump might respond to that and further leadership in renewable energy just to "Make America Great Again".
I also agree foreign money does buy up a lot of American assets and land, and basically America is a debtor nation in this regard.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
But its not so much due to energy imports or exports and is due to an economic policy of capitalist market forces and open investment flows, and relates to land, manufacturing and financial assets etc. So theres not much governments can do with energy policy that would alter this. It depends more on how much one considers governments should regulate those capital flows, and the standard economic argument is only in emergencies.
However in my opinion, America should hold onto at least some manufacturing industry (I think thats what you are implying). However I admit economic theory says "it doesn't have to" if other countries do this better, but it seems to me you are creating a very narrow economic base, just reliant on farming and financial services exports, which could create instability, and a narrow selection of job opportunities. And outsourcing manufacture of key military assets is just very high risk, for self evident reasons.
But tariffs are a very crude way of protecting manufacturing, according to most economists. This that may reduce wealth creation globally, and also in America. It needs a bit more sophisticated thinking.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 3 March 2017How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Well I dont know what you mean by "good", but its substance was the Briske 2013 paper "The Savory Method can not green deserts or reverse climate change". More interesting is to follow the ongoing scientific debate. I found Briske response to Teague constructive. My feeling is that more research is going to settle these questions.
-
michael sweet at 06:08 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
It is interesting to see a diferent method of addresing the issue of storing power for need. Several different options are offered by this article, Jacobson and the Budischak article linked in the OP. It will be very interesting over the next ten to twenty years to see which of these options turns out to be the most practical and cheapest.
It is always better to have several options when you are trying to solve a difficult problem.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Are we going to keep charging up the centre into the teeth of the maching guns or are we going to outflank them and roll them up from the flank. Forget the battle to convince any of those worthy gentlemen of the gop (small caps intentional) about climate change. Get the meme into the head of their boss about how much money America the Great is wasting buying oil overseas, how that money comes back to buy up America the Great and make great Americans tenants in their own country. Emphasize how some of that money goes to the terrs who attack America the Great and how this could all be solved by a combination of electric cars and lots and lots of solar panels on people's rooves and lots more wind turbines. Besides, the leading Electric car company of the world is as All American as the New York Yankies. With all that saved money Trump could rebuild America and get people back to work making him the greatest president America has had since Washington. (using a trowel, not a butter knife)
-
nigelj at 05:22 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Villabolo @2
I was wondering about that as well. I agree hybrids with really decent batteries would cover all eventualities, with 100 miles plus on battery and much more on petrol. It's an appealing option, but obviously not zero emissions. That's your real problem. It also adds cost and complexity of two engines, although I admit that is not a huge issue.
Looking at fully electric cars with 100 - 150 miles range, this does cover most trips, and can be charged overnight. People charge their smartphones every day, and it hasn't stopped them being popular.
Most people make short trips, plus a few long trips on holiday. It's not such a big issue to stop for an hour for a coffee or two while the car charges, or rent a very long range electric car for the annual holiday. It's just a mental adjustment and planning thing.
-
nigelj at 04:51 AM on 3 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
This is a very good read on discount rate theory applied to climate change;
www.sciencenews.org/article/discounting-future-cost-climate-change
I read it purely to get some understanding of how the economics of this issue works. Conventional discount rates don't make sense over the long term time frames of climate change. The article discusses modified approaches.
-
villabolo at 02:49 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
Electric cars are not going to be popular right away because of the hassle of charging them up every 100 miles. Hybrids, on the other hand, get up to 500 (50mpg X ~10 gallons.)
The best of all worlds will be plug-in hybrids. The 2017 model of the Toyota Prius is supposed to go 20 miles only on electric drive alone and about 500 miles on hybrid - gas/electric. Once they get to the point where they have a range of 100 miles on battery power alone the driver will be able to relax knowing that he could recharge his car at home overnight.
One thing to keep in mind is the fact that battery technology has been coming down in price, becoming denser in energy storage, and getting safer. The technology is improving fast - every year sees a notable improvement.
With clean energy as it's source, you can have an 80 to 100% reduction in fossil fuel emissions from vehicles alone.
-
JWRebel at 02:22 AM on 3 March 2017Electric Cars are the Missing Link to a Zero Carbon Energy Grid
In the Netherlands they (cabinet) are toying with a ban on fossil-fuel cars in 2035 (the right) although the left wants to see 2025. They already ban old cars from the city centre — on the highways they compare your license plate and if the car predates certain emission standards, signs warn you not to exit or go into town. The highways for some time now are already being built with facilities under the surface for autonomous driving. Plans are to fit more cars onto narrower lanes spaced close together and driving 150km — such lanes would obviously be barred for manually driven cars. There is a good chance that fossil-fuel and manual driving will run into simultaneous elimination, manual-driving because people don't heed rules and speed limits and a lot of energy and trouble could be saved on speed bumps [it would be interesting to know how much energy stop signs and speed bumps cost] and investments in safety. There is still a challenge in building enough renewable energy of course.
Things will happen faster than people think. If more people here were less complacent about melting ice and SLR [the country is under sea level, and everybody takes it for granted there will be no problem raising sea walls and barriers for centuries], there would be quite a lot more pressure on the government to set an example for other nations.
-
David Kirtley at 23:13 PM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@10 DrivingBy, further to what Rob and Tom said..."The Pumphandle" video showing the Keeling curve as well as other CO2 measurements from around the globe, clearly shows the differences in S. and N. hemisphere CO2 measurements as the years pass. The graph on the left side shows the various CO2 stations according to latitude. The south pole station is the blue dot on the far left and the Keeling measurements come from Mauna Loa, the red dot. Notice how much the other station readings in the northern hemisphere bounce around during each year.
-
michael sweet at 20:54 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tmketner,
I am curious as to why scientists working for Exxon and the other oil comapnies concluded that AGW is affecting the Earth. According to your points, they should have concluded that AGW was not caused by CO2 and would cause no harm. In addition, during the Bush aministration, when scientists warning about AGW were censored, scientists continued to warn about the dangers of AGW against their economic interest. The Trump administration rewards those who deny AGW but there are few takers.
Can you explain why scientists are so stupid that they act against their own clear economic interest and continue to claim that AGW is a problem?
-
Paul W at 20:32 PM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@9 What a treasure trove the work of Wally Broecker is!! Thank you for the reference. No wonder you did not bother to write about igneous rock weathering. I'd expect now from a slight glance from "over Broecker shoulder" that igneous rocks rate of weathering is going to be some what slower than carbonate rock weathering.
-
sjames0101 at 18:59 PM on 2 March 2017How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
Here is good article that debunks some of the claims made by Savory. http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link Please learn how to create links yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 17:17 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Tom Curtis@6
My point is requiring the proof that an economic pursuit is very likely to improve the future for all of humanity. A future Net-Benefit evaluation can be the basis for that. However, like structure engineering, the evaluated negative impacts (loads) would need to be magnified to account for the inaccuracy of speculation. And the positive expectations (structure performance) would need to be scaled back. That would be the way to establish reasonable certainty that there was an expected future net benefit.
Discount rates would be irrelevant. The future costs and benefits are in the future. A discount rate used to compare discounted future costs to current day Lost Opportunity is not an acceptable evaluation for this and many other issues. It would not even be acceptable to do a comparison that reduces current day Lost Opportunity to compare with an increased or amplified future cost. It needs to be understood that it is unacceptable for a current generation, especially only a portion of a current generation, to benefit from creating a net-negative consequence for future generations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:39 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Tom Curtis@6.
Many things considered to be "benefits" today are only unsustainable perceptions that actually are adding more future costs. Many perceptions of prosperity and wealth are actually without a future. The examples of unsustainable and harmful developed economic activity abound. Until they are cleared from the economy the economy is at future risk of Depression.
The reality that this is one planet with a tremedously long potential future for humanity, and potentially the only future for humanity, fails to be properly considered.
Properly considering the real future changes what is perceived to be of value.
However, if it can be shown, not just speculated, that more burning of fossil fuels actually is very likely to develop a lasting improvement for all of humanity I would accept that rigorous proof. I am however very skeptical that evidence of that sort exists. The same requirement for evidence of helping to improve the future for all of humanity would apply to any other desired economic pursuit.
All that is being asked for is what an Engineer is required to do. Prove the viability and lack of harm before something gets to compete to be popular and profitable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:25 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
I wish to clarify my comment about laws/regulations/rules.
Legitimate rules, rules that will have a future, are consistent with the objective of helping to improve the near and distant future for all of humanity. Rules, or a lack of rules, because of other objectives eventually get over-ruled as their unacceptability and the harm they do becomes more apparant/better understood.
And new rules and regulations are constantly required to attempt to discourage activity that has developed to the point of being a significant source of harm and concern. The required change related to pursuits of profit is eliminating the defence of "What was done cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be against the laws that existed at the time it was gotten away with". The requirement for acceptability of pursuits of profit needs to be that what was/is being done can be proven to not likely be creating negative consequences for others or for future generations based on the 'developed understanding of the time' (not the understanding that was popular - the real understanding). On that basis, pursuits of profit related to fossil fuel burning that were developed after the 1980s would have no valid defence, no matter what made-up laws/regulations/requirements existed.
This change would result in a correction of perceptions of wealth and opportunity. It would help improve the future of humanity. It would only negatively affect people who have developed a negative value from the perspective of future generations of humanity.
Of course, a global enforcement of the rule would also be required. That means the end of sovereignty when it comes to economic matters impacting the future of humanity. But multi-national corporations and international trade have already ended economic national sovereignty regardless of the persistence of other perceptions.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:16 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
OPOF @5, we do not receive only costs from prior generations. We receive benefits as well. In this century, at least in the west, those benefits are substantial. Acting on a policy that excludes anything that has costs attached will necessarilly exclude also many of those things which provide benefits - often more benefit than cost. Looking to the future, we need to assess whether the things we do now will provide more benefits than costs, and act accordingly. To do that on a formal basis requires that we use discount rates.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:36 PM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
The Moral/Ethical/Justified basis for the discussion has to be that "anything that cannot be shown to most likely improve the near and distant future for all of humanity" should no longer be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.
Starting from that understanding the discussion of discount rates on future costs goes out the window. Creating costs and challenges to be faced by future generations (others) would simply be unacceptable. The games of competition for popularity and profitability only work well when every person wanting to benefit from an activity faces the full risk and negative consequences. Trying to "set a price to be paid" for creating negative consequences is just another game that is easily rigged to delay the actual required change. And in this case the rigging includes the deception that wealth today will grow to be more future wealth. Only economic activity that can be proven to be lasting improvements of the near and distant future for all of humanity would be likely to "grow future value". So an activity like burning fossil fuels is worse than worthless, it has negative value from the perspective of the future generations.
The Lost Opportunity or Lost Perception of Prosperity by members of the current generation do not get to be Balanced with risk of challenges and costs imposed on others, especially the impacts on future generations. And the people wanting to benefit today from an activity should definitely not have the freedom to believe whatever they want regarding the potential negative impact their actions will have on others or the future generations. That is understood by the misleading marketing people who are now pushing the propaganda to encourage people to dismiss and dislike explanations from "Experts".
That clarifies the problem to be solved: The objective is rapidly curtailing the impacts of very popular and profitable damaging activity (striving for a limit on impacts of 1.5 C increase). And that means current day pursuers of benefit (with all of the wealthiest leading by example) would have to prove that they have fully addressed and neutralized the unacceptable impacts of their desired pursuits or stop trying to benefit from them (no matter how much more expensive or less profitable for them the justifiable alternatives are).
That will mean that many people perceived to be prosperous or having opportunity (or perceived to be Winners) are not as valuable to humanity as their current measure of wealth indicates. And some of them would have a significant Negative value (from the perspective of future generations).
One battle line has been drawn - The claim that many people have developed expectations and perceptions of prosperity and opportunity that must be "Maintained and Boosted, rather than be Corrected". This is the case in Alberta where a rush to expand the rate of extraction of Bitumen from the sands of Northern Alberta for global burning is being used to claim that the recently increased population and investment attracted by perceptions of opportunity and prosperity must have their damaging delusions defended and even encouraged to become even more powerful damaging delusions (like the claims that new pipelines must be built). Many similar misleading marketing campaigns "excusing and defending understandably unacceptable developed economic activity" are being played around the planet, to the detriment of the future of humanity.
Some may say that the point I start from is Extreme. However, when dealing with people who think everything is a game and anything can be negotiated it can help to be clear about just how much they stand to lose if helping to improving the future for all of humanity actually becomes the generally accepted judgment basis (rather than just made-up laws that can be changed, are different in different regions, and are subject to gaming and selective enforcement).
-
scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence? "
Because if your worldview is at odds with data, then that data must be wrong? Let your opinions be changed by facts is not something that naturally to any of us.
Also note that FF CO2 is differently isotopically from Volcanic CO2 as Tom has detailed before.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:12 PM on 2 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner @295:
""The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."
This is assertion with no evidence."
stephen baines is correct. You did provide no evidence for your claim, and the evidence that has been provided (Glenn Tamblyn @293, Me @294) shows conclusively that your claim was incorrect.
The further "evidence" you no provide has no direct bearing on whether or not there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to cause a significant greenhouse effect (what you were discussing).
"The amount of CO2 released by the Earth alone closer to 1 billion tons per year on average, according to new research."
Indeed, according to that research total geological outgassing from all sources amounts to 937 Mt/annum (second paragraph, page 343). But according to that same research, total geological ingassing is measured at 403 Mt/annum; and that probably represents a measurement error in that over time total geological outgassing equals total geologial ingassing. It follows that net geological outgassing is, at most around 500 Mt/Annum, and probably zero. In the meantime, that same research quotes a 2010 estimate of anthropogenic emmissions at 35,000 Mt/annum (page 342, 3rd paragraph). So, the best you can claim is that geological emissions are 2.9% of anthropogenic emissions; and probable net geological emissions are negligible in comparison.
A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence?
Moderator Response:[RH] Cognitive dissonance is a physically painful malady to sing. Probably best to refrain.
Prev 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 Next
